We don't have to complete the space station either. We can let it fall into the ocean. The world won't end if that happens, and we can get on to REAL exploration instea
No, the world won't end. But I'd give a very good chance that taxpayer support for Nasa would take a huge nosedive if all the money thrown into the ISS was all for nothing. The same thing is probbably true for other taxpayers in other countries funding the ISS as well. No amount of money is going to change the fact that anything going wrong with any part of the shuttle is going to cascade and damage something else that is sitting right next to it.
Strange. I'm under the impression that things go wrong all the time with parts of the shuttle and they don't cascade into further failures. The foam has fallen off on all 200 some flights, and only once did it cascade into further failures. Just this last flight the gap filler came out, and it didn't cascade into further failures.
I'm not sure how much science the ISS really is going to produce, but if we're going to do manned space exploration to Mars, we're going to have to tackle long duration space flight. To do that you need a place to study long duration spaceflight. Currently (and for the long term future) the only place to do is the ISS.
It may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. The shuttle certainly isn't perfect, but it's what we've got right now. It's not like the political climate that produced these imperfect beasts has changed much, so ditching the ISS and starting over would likely lead to the same thing.
I will say this though, if the only goal of NASA were science they should absolutely ditch the ISS and the shuttle. That's not the only goal of NASA however. You can argue about what the goals should be, but be clear about what you're arguing for. A waste of time is different depending upon what you value.
I heard a news report that said that gap fillers had been known to come loose in the past and no one worried about it too much.
Very true. But I think the thing that's more pertinent is that they've not had the ability to see when the gap fillers had come out. If you can't see there's a problem, you can't fix it.
The other risk is just the inherent risk of spacewalks. One paint chip going 30,000 mph hits an astronaut, and he's instantly dead.
That or the space shuttle is inherrently flawed. Let's scrap the shuttle and make something better, before the next crew dies.
The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer? If so, how much safer? Life is risky you know. Hell, we can hardly build a bridge or a skyscraper without SOMEONE dying.
There is one thing that's not disputed, and that is that the shuttle flights are way too expensive. The shuttle IS set to be scrapped, but we have to complete the space station before that can happen. For the moment the shuttle serves a purpose that can't be quickly replaced.
I think they should be doing exactly what they are, and that is get the damn ISS built, then scrap the shuttle since it's purpose will have been served.
All I ever seen mentioned is "the scientists". Who are these people, what training do they have? Do they have some agenda at hand beyond "conservation" (whatever that means these days). Do they have any legitimatacy, or are they just hacks?
Too many times the word "scientist" is banterred about to try to bring legitimacy to some wild claim. I'm no biologist, ecologist, etc, but I do know that just about every time we've intentionally or accidentally introduced species that aren't native to an area it's been a disaster. If you want examples, look no further than jack rabbits in Australia, zebra mussles in the great lakes, invasive algae in the mediteranean, and countless other examples.
About the only thing we have introduced to an area that hasn't been a disaster are the crops we farm. I suspect the only reason is that human influenced crops aren't hardy enough to survive on their own without us looking after them very carefully. Wild corn, or wild chickens don't seem to be taking over anywhere for instance.
Could the so-called scientists present some credentials please? This sounds more like media garbage than actual science.
Same logic: If I stab someone, it's not MY fault, it's the fault of the government for not outlawing knives.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is a GAME. Beating people up and stealing stuff from them is part of the game. The designers of the game put that in the game intentionally. That means it's part of the rules. Games aren't like everyday life walking around your neighborhood. The rules are different from everyday life, and the consequences to you are minimized. People play them for exactly that reason.
If you want an analogy, it'd be like a boxer complaining that his nose was broken in a sanctioned fight. When you sign up for the game there's certain risks you accept as an inherent part of the game. In this game having your virtual stuff stolen is part of that.
Once he violated his EULA, which IS subject to real-world law
You're always subject to real world law, EULA or not. he then was committing a crime by continuing to play and selling the item.
Well, at least in the US he had broken the license agreement. That means he was subject to lawsuits from the game maker, but it has nothing to do with criminal law. So from a purely technical perspective, he sold the item, which was obtained while performing an illegal act
What illegal act? Violating the EULA? That's not illegal, but a breach of contract. Completely different.
Despite what corporate America (or Corporate international for that matter) would have you believe violating a EULA isn't a criminal act. Obviously the game maker can delete this guys account and ban him from the game, but he can't be prosecuted, at least under US law. I suppose the game maker could try to sue him for damages in civil court. They'd have to show damages of course, and that he was liable for said damages. The case would amount to "the guy was mean, and people didn't want to play the game because he was mean!". Not a very sound argument. Now, tell me how that's not subject to Japanese law?
I've no idea what the laws are like in Japan. Maybe violating a EULA is a criminal offense in Japan and you'll wind up with 20 years behind bars. Maybe just being a jerk is illegal in Japan, who knows? The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't theft. Crazy laws in Japan could make anything illegal, including calling the laws in Japan crazy.
Maybe he cheated them out of enjoyment, but this isn't a gambling game. Cheating someone out of enjoyment isn't illegal. Since this isn't a gambling game cheating isn't illegal. People cheat all the time in Quake like games, but I don't hear anyone calling for arrests to be made.
Furthermore the potential for the sword to be stolen from you is part of the game. If you don't want to take that risk, play another game where theft isn't allowed by the software.
And you've missed the most important point. Any player playing the game assumes the risk that items might be stolen from them. Beating people up and taking their stuff was intentionally programmed into the game. It's therefore part of the game. If you don't want take the risk that the virtual items you earned while playing the game are taken away from you, don't play.
How did this guy cheat anyone out of money? The game allows beating people up and robbing them. "The rules" are just what you're allowed to do by the software. If he had hacked the game and stole things, that would be a different matter. He didn't do that though.
This is more like writing a computer program to play online poker. Lots of people do that and it's not considered illegal or immoral. In this case it may spoil the fun of the game for others, but being a jerk isn't illegal.
How is this fraud? He didn't deceive anyone into getting these items, his bot beat them up and stole them. Both those actions are specifically allowed, and had to be programmed in the game. How is that illegal? It's mean, and he's a jerk, but I don't see how it's illegal. Even in the real world that's not anything near fraud.
Now, if he sold virtual items online, and they didn't turn out to be what he said they were that might be fraud. He didn't do that though.
Please explain how this is anything like fraud, because I can't see any similarities to fraud.
Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007?
It isn't, and no one but you seem to be claiming that's the goal. I don't know where you got the word cheap, certainly not in the article summary or the article itself. The goal is universal affordable broadband. I see this goal much like rural electrification that started in the 1930s.
The nation as a whole has an interest in broadband internet access being available to everyone. This is no different than roads, power, and phone service. Why is that so hard to understand?
For the 99% of the population that doesn't want to transmit data between two mountains, this is useless. You need those two mountains to get past the distance limitations imposed by the curvature of the earth.
Something as vague as "a decent chance" isn't a safe statement? The guy was comparing this agent to bleach, which there's no chance it's safe for humans (or almost any species for that matter). If researchers never investigated plausible, but unknown avenues of knowledge we'd never get anywhere.
Of course that doesn't mean you should start injecting crocodile blood into your veins, but I think taken in the context of comparing this to bleach, "a decent chance" is a very fair statement.
It depends on what you mean by "prove". There is really no such thing as "prove" in science. But essentially the answer is yes. To a very high degree of certainty we know that HIV causes AIDS. I suggest reading up on the literature if you have any doubt. I remember reading a very interesting article a few years back that implied that the HIV hypothesis was published without proper peer review by the US government because they were under pressure to be seen to be doing something.
Right, and I saw an article about how the holocaust didn't happen. I also saw a TV show on Fox News about how the moon landings might have been faked. I don't know where you read this article, but I doubt it was any kind of reputable source. Why are you skeptical of the vast majority of scientists in this field, but not some article you read somewhere by one person?
Ummm.... So? The same thing can be said of chlorine bleach.
True, but since this agent doesn't kill or harm crocodiles there's a decent chance it'll be safe for humans. There is nothing in the article to suggest that they have isolated the specific component that kills HIV, let alone determined that it is safe for human injection.
Very true. It's called research. You start with knowing very little, and eventually you might get something usefull. They're still at the knowing very little stage. Maybe they might get to the knowing a bit more stage sometime later.
I guess what I'm confused by is why you expected some announcement of a cure. Haven't you ever seen articles that talk about new research, breadcrumbs of information, etc? The answers don't arrive all in one big piece. This article merely talks about one stage of one search.
There's nothing I like more than calling people on not following their own advice, so thanks for that opportunity. Had you actually read my post, you might realize I wasn't talking about Google (I specifically excluded it). Perhaps you should follow your own advice, and pay a little more attention to what you're responding to.
The search engine case aside (probbably far more complicated with Google having physical presence in most countries), how can Australia hope to regulate a website that's neither physically in Australia, nor run by Australians?
If the news article is right (and it's certainly possible it's completely wrong), all that has to be true is that mostly Australians visit the site, and online gambling is advertised. So if I (A US citizen) setup a website that Australians really like, then put advertising for gambling sites on it, I've somehow broken Australian law.
This whole law sounds very fishy. Is Australia going to seek extradition for anyone running a website targeting Australians that advertises gambling (and later on maybe whatever else they don't like)?
To any Australians complaining about how the US wants to extend control of the law beyond our borders I hold up a shiny mirror. To anyone else, maybe your country is next.
There's an inherent assumption in the Yahoo claim that more==better. Do I really care if a search returns 1 million results vs 6 million results?
What I care about is actually getting the information I went out to find. There's only a certain amount of hits I'm willing to explore. That's probbably on the order of 100-200 or so if I _really_ need the information. The implication by Yahoo is that more hits == better top ranked hits. Is that true? Really what should be done is just compare the top few hundred hits between the two search engines and see how they differ. Those are the only ones that matter anyway.
Where more results might prove usefull is obscure searches with less than 100-200 hits. But if this study is true, Yahoo does a worse job on obscure searches that google.
The problem of course is the type of obscure searches that this study performed. Two random words out of a dictionary just isn't what your typical person conducting a search engine query is looking for.
That's pretty much what theorists do though. They leave the experimenting to the experimentalists. If he ignored the results of experiments and relied on theory I think that would be closer to Edison.
Edison had teams of people working for him. He basically industrialized inventing. Really he was more of a "brute force" inventor than posessing any real brilliance. One quote I really like from Tesla about Edison:
If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search... I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.
Just admit that you're wrong. You can't find any examples of Microsoft putting pressure on competitors through its patent portfolio. Simply applying for patents doesn't qualify.
Right now you sound like a fool who can't admit when they've made a mistake.
The claim made by this obscure "institute" (really just a few people with a few dollars and a website) are simply insane. Spectrum is still scarce, and a few mhz of unlicenced (but still regulated) spectrum isn't going to turn into a huge data pipe just because of The Free Market.
It seems like libertarians have a fanatical belief in the powers of free markets. Free markets will solve all problems! It reminds me of all the marijuana extremists who claim that legalizing marijuana will cure all ills (including environmental, health, and economics).
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have to complete the space station either. We can let it fall into the ocean. The world won't end if that happens, and we can get on to REAL exploration instea
No, the world won't end. But I'd give a very good chance that taxpayer support for Nasa would take a huge nosedive if all the money thrown into the ISS was all for nothing. The same thing is probbably true for other taxpayers in other countries funding the ISS as well.
No amount of money is going to change the fact that anything going wrong with any part of the shuttle is going to cascade and damage something else that is sitting right next to it.
Strange. I'm under the impression that things go wrong all the time with parts of the shuttle and they don't cascade into further failures. The foam has fallen off on all 200 some flights, and only once did it cascade into further failures. Just this last flight the gap filler came out, and it didn't cascade into further failures.
I'm not sure how much science the ISS really is going to produce, but if we're going to do manned space exploration to Mars, we're going to have to tackle long duration space flight. To do that you need a place to study long duration spaceflight. Currently (and for the long term future) the only place to do is the ISS.
It may not be perfect, but it's what we've got. The shuttle certainly isn't perfect, but it's what we've got right now. It's not like the political climate that produced these imperfect beasts has changed much, so ditching the ISS and starting over would likely lead to the same thing.
I will say this though, if the only goal of NASA were science they should absolutely ditch the ISS and the shuttle. That's not the only goal of NASA however. You can argue about what the goals should be, but be clear about what you're arguing for. A waste of time is different depending upon what you value.
I heard a news report that said that gap fillers had been known to come loose in the past and no one worried about it too much.
Very true. But I think the thing that's more pertinent is that they've not had the ability to see when the gap fillers had come out. If you can't see there's a problem, you can't fix it.
The other risk is just the inherent risk of spacewalks. One paint chip going 30,000 mph hits an astronaut, and he's instantly dead.
That or the space shuttle is inherrently flawed. Let's scrap the shuttle and make something better, before the next crew dies.
The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer? If so, how much safer? Life is risky you know. Hell, we can hardly build a bridge or a skyscraper without SOMEONE dying.
There is one thing that's not disputed, and that is that the shuttle flights are way too expensive. The shuttle IS set to be scrapped, but we have to complete the space station before that can happen. For the moment the shuttle serves a purpose that can't be quickly replaced.
I think they should be doing exactly what they are, and that is get the damn ISS built, then scrap the shuttle since it's purpose will have been served.
All I ever seen mentioned is "the scientists". Who are these people, what training do they have? Do they have some agenda at hand beyond "conservation" (whatever that means these days). Do they have any legitimatacy, or are they just hacks?
Too many times the word "scientist" is banterred about to try to bring legitimacy to some wild claim. I'm no biologist, ecologist, etc, but I do know that just about every time we've intentionally or accidentally introduced species that aren't native to an area it's been a disaster. If you want examples, look no further than jack rabbits in Australia, zebra mussles in the great lakes, invasive algae in the mediteranean, and countless other examples.
About the only thing we have introduced to an area that hasn't been a disaster are the crops we farm. I suspect the only reason is that human influenced crops aren't hardy enough to survive on their own without us looking after them very carefully. Wild corn, or wild chickens don't seem to be taking over anywhere for instance.
Could the so-called scientists present some credentials please? This sounds more like media garbage than actual science.
Same logic: If I stab someone, it's not MY fault, it's the fault of the government for not outlawing knives.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is a GAME. Beating people up and stealing stuff from them is part of the game. The designers of the game put that in the game intentionally. That means it's part of the rules. Games aren't like everyday life walking around your neighborhood. The rules are different from everyday life, and the consequences to you are minimized. People play them for exactly that reason.
If you want an analogy, it'd be like a boxer complaining that his nose was broken in a sanctioned fight. When you sign up for the game there's certain risks you accept as an inherent part of the game. In this game having your virtual stuff stolen is part of that.
Once he violated his EULA, which IS subject to real-world law
You're always subject to real world law, EULA or not.
he then was committing a crime by continuing to play and selling the item.
Well, at least in the US he had broken the license agreement. That means he was subject to lawsuits from the game maker, but it has nothing to do with criminal law.
So from a purely technical perspective, he sold the item, which was obtained while performing an illegal act
What illegal act? Violating the EULA? That's not illegal, but a breach of contract. Completely different.
Despite what corporate America (or Corporate international for that matter) would have you believe violating a EULA isn't a criminal act. Obviously the game maker can delete this guys account and ban him from the game, but he can't be prosecuted, at least under US law. I suppose the game maker could try to sue him for damages in civil court. They'd have to show damages of course, and that he was liable for said damages. The case would amount to "the guy was mean, and people didn't want to play the game because he was mean!". Not a very sound argument.
Now, tell me how that's not subject to Japanese law?
I've no idea what the laws are like in Japan. Maybe violating a EULA is a criminal offense in Japan and you'll wind up with 20 years behind bars. Maybe just being a jerk is illegal in Japan, who knows? The point I'm trying to make is that this isn't theft. Crazy laws in Japan could make anything illegal, including calling the laws in Japan crazy.
Maybe he cheated them out of enjoyment, but this isn't a gambling game. Cheating someone out of enjoyment isn't illegal. Since this isn't a gambling game cheating isn't illegal. People cheat all the time in Quake like games, but I don't hear anyone calling for arrests to be made.
Furthermore the potential for the sword to be stolen from you is part of the game. If you don't want to take that risk, play another game where theft isn't allowed by the software.
And you've missed the most important point. Any player playing the game assumes the risk that items might be stolen from them. Beating people up and taking their stuff was intentionally programmed into the game. It's therefore part of the game. If you don't want take the risk that the virtual items you earned while playing the game are taken away from you, don't play.
but its a crime to cheat someone out of money.
How did this guy cheat anyone out of money? The game allows beating people up and robbing them. "The rules" are just what you're allowed to do by the software. If he had hacked the game and stole things, that would be a different matter. He didn't do that though.
This is more like writing a computer program to play online poker. Lots of people do that and it's not considered illegal or immoral. In this case it may spoil the fun of the game for others, but being a jerk isn't illegal.
How is this fraud? He didn't deceive anyone into getting these items, his bot beat them up and stole them. Both those actions are specifically allowed, and had to be programmed in the game. How is that illegal? It's mean, and he's a jerk, but I don't see how it's illegal. Even in the real world that's not anything near fraud.
Now, if he sold virtual items online, and they didn't turn out to be what he said they were that might be fraud. He didn't do that though.
Please explain how this is anything like fraud, because I can't see any similarities to fraud.
Why is it the role of the federal government to ensure cheap broadband by 2007?
It isn't, and no one but you seem to be claiming that's the goal. I don't know where you got the word cheap, certainly not in the article summary or the article itself. The goal is universal affordable broadband. I see this goal much like rural electrification that started in the 1930s.
The nation as a whole has an interest in broadband internet access being available to everyone. This is no different than roads, power, and phone service. Why is that so hard to understand?
For the 99% of the population that doesn't want to transmit data between two mountains, this is useless. You need those two mountains to get past the distance limitations imposed by the curvature of the earth.
That is nota good bet or a safe statement.
Something as vague as "a decent chance" isn't a safe statement? The guy was comparing this agent to bleach, which there's no chance it's safe for humans (or almost any species for that matter). If researchers never investigated plausible, but unknown avenues of knowledge we'd never get anywhere.
Of course that doesn't mean you should start injecting crocodile blood into your veins, but I think taken in the context of comparing this to bleach, "a decent chance" is a very fair statement.
Has anyone actually proved that HIV causes AIDS?
It depends on what you mean by "prove". There is really no such thing as "prove" in science. But essentially the answer is yes. To a very high degree of certainty we know that HIV causes AIDS. I suggest reading up on the literature if you have any doubt.
I remember reading a very interesting article a few years back that implied that the HIV hypothesis was published without proper peer review by the US government because they were under pressure to be seen to be doing something.
Right, and I saw an article about how the holocaust didn't happen. I also saw a TV show on Fox News about how the moon landings might have been faked. I don't know where you read this article, but I doubt it was any kind of reputable source. Why are you skeptical of the vast majority of scientists in this field, but not some article you read somewhere by one person?
Ummm.... So? The same thing can be said of chlorine bleach.
True, but since this agent doesn't kill or harm crocodiles there's a decent chance it'll be safe for humans.
There is nothing in the article to suggest that they have isolated the specific component that kills HIV, let alone determined that it is safe for human injection.
Very true. It's called research. You start with knowing very little, and eventually you might get something usefull. They're still at the knowing very little stage. Maybe they might get to the knowing a bit more stage sometime later.
I guess what I'm confused by is why you expected some announcement of a cure. Haven't you ever seen articles that talk about new research, breadcrumbs of information, etc? The answers don't arrive all in one big piece. This article merely talks about one stage of one search.
google.com.au . RTFA, man. Please.
There's nothing I like more than calling people on not following their own advice, so thanks for that opportunity. Had you actually read my post, you might realize I wasn't talking about Google (I specifically excluded it). Perhaps you should follow your own advice, and pay a little more attention to what you're responding to.
The search engine case aside (probbably far more complicated with Google having physical presence in most countries), how can Australia hope to regulate a website that's neither physically in Australia, nor run by Australians?
If the news article is right (and it's certainly possible it's completely wrong), all that has to be true is that mostly Australians visit the site, and online gambling is advertised. So if I (A US citizen) setup a website that Australians really like, then put advertising for gambling sites on it, I've somehow broken Australian law.
This whole law sounds very fishy. Is Australia going to seek extradition for anyone running a website targeting Australians that advertises gambling (and later on maybe whatever else they don't like)?
To any Australians complaining about how the US wants to extend control of the law beyond our borders I hold up a shiny mirror. To anyone else, maybe your country is next.
There's an inherent assumption in the Yahoo claim that more==better. Do I really care if a search returns 1 million results vs 6 million results?
What I care about is actually getting the information I went out to find. There's only a certain amount of hits I'm willing to explore. That's probbably on the order of 100-200 or so if I _really_ need the information. The implication by Yahoo is that more hits == better top ranked hits. Is that true? Really what should be done is just compare the top few hundred hits between the two search engines and see how they differ. Those are the only ones that matter anyway.
Where more results might prove usefull is obscure searches with less than 100-200 hits. But if this study is true, Yahoo does a worse job on obscure searches that google.
The problem of course is the type of obscure searches that this study performed. Two random words out of a dictionary just isn't what your typical person conducting a search engine query is looking for.
That's pretty much what theorists do though. They leave the experimenting to the experimentalists. If he ignored the results of experiments and relied on theory I think that would be closer to Edison.
Just admit that you're wrong. You can't find any examples of Microsoft putting pressure on competitors through its patent portfolio. Simply applying for patents doesn't qualify.
Right now you sound like a fool who can't admit when they've made a mistake.
Please tell me where you live and work so I can stay as FAR away from those places as possible.
sqrt(7.03)=2.65 miles x 2.65 miles
l /Demographics/National/Average_Farm_Size_2003/Aver age_Farm_Size_2003.htm)
That's still quite large. As a comparison a farm is typically in the neighborhood of 500 acres or so, some are in the 1000+ acre size. (see http://www.unl.edu/nac/conservation/atlas/Map_Htm
The claim made by this obscure "institute" (really just a few people with a few dollars and a website) are simply insane. Spectrum is still scarce, and a few mhz of unlicenced (but still regulated) spectrum isn't going to turn into a huge data pipe just because of The Free Market.
It seems like libertarians have a fanatical belief in the powers of free markets. Free markets will solve all problems! It reminds me of all the marijuana extremists who claim that legalizing marijuana will cure all ills (including environmental, health, and economics).